Replies

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SUSAN HERBERT,
Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:08-cv-1164-J-20TEM

BARACK OBAMA and
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
___________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dec. 2008)

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/herbert-obama-report.pdf

Excerpt:

The “judgment” to which Plaintiff refers in the title of this construed complaint, and against which Plaintiff seeks an “emergency stay of enforcement,” are the presidential election results that will lead to the installation of Senator Barack Obama as the next president of the United States (see Doc. #1, p.7 of 50 of main document).

Throughout Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff sets forth her account of the myriad of ways in which she believes she has been harmed because her name was allegedly illegally kept off the voting ballot for the 2008 presidential election (see generally, Doc. #1).

Plaintiff also claims, among other things, she was the “only acting legal President not placed upon the ballot and who never voluntarily withdrew [her] name. . .”

(see Doc. #1, p. 6 of 50 of main document), “[o]nly mothers and veterans have a protected right to hold this office. . .”

(see Doc. #1 at p.23 of 50 of main document), that other federal judges violated the law to silence Plaintiff and keep her off the ballot (Doc. #1 at p.29 of 50 of main document), and through a flash of genius she created “ the means to enter the US [sic] Supreme Court directly. . .” (Doc. #1 at p. 46 of 50 of main document).

However, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to indicate she even took the steps necessary to qualify as a presidential candidate. See Fla. Stat. §§ 103.21, 103.22.

It is also noted that the allegations and facts set forth in the complaint somewhat mirror those from previous cases Plaintiff has filed.

See Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-315-J-20HTS; Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-699-J-25TEM; Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-776-J-12MCR, Herbert v. United States, et al., Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-964-J-33TEM.

Indeed, in Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-315-J-20HTS, filed on April 19, 2007, the court dismissed the action on June 12, 2007, upon finding “Plaintiff[’s] claims are clearly fantastic and delusional and her requested relief is beyond the Court’s authority.” (Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, Doc. #8, pp. 2-3).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the allegations contained the complaint to be frivolous as defined herein. Accordingly, it is recommended:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED.
2. The case be DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a properly amended paid complaint.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

DONE AND ENTERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 8th day of December, 2008.

Copies to all counsel of record
and pro se parties